Prior to allowing multiple log sinks, first allow logging to a file on
disk to be disabled.
Signed-off-by: William Douglas william.doug...@intel.com
---
configure.ac | 9 +
include/xorg-config.h.in | 3 +++
os/log.c | 8
3 files changed, 20
Instead of just being able to log to a file on disk, allow option to
log to systemd's journal.
This can work with or without logging to a file enabled.
Signed-off-by: William Douglas william.doug...@intel.com
---
configure.ac | 14 ++
include/xorg-config.h.in | 3 +++
On 09/09/13 20:58, Matt Dew wrote:
On 09/07/2013 05:22 PM, Peter Hutterer wrote:
On 8/09/13 03:58 , Matt Dew wrote:
On 09/05/2013 07:11 PM, Keith Packard wrote:
Peter Hutterer peter.hutte...@who-t.net writes:
Chris Clayton (1):
kdrive: fix build error on gcc 4.8 for out-of-bounds
Though I'd love to look into the gnome-shell issue more (changing to the
overview should not call XIGrabKey/XIUngrabKey a ton of times), the
handling in the server here was ridiculous and this is obviously an
improvement.
Reviewed-by: Jasper St. Pierre jstpie...@mecheye.net
On Tue, Sep 10,
Committed. Thanks! --Bart
On Wed, Sep 11, 2013 at 1:13 AM, Arnaud Fontaine arn...@andesi.org wrote:
Hello,
Anyone could apply and push this patch? Thanks!
Cheers,
--
Arnaud Fontaine
___
xorg-devel@lists.x.org: X.Org development
Archives:
Hello,
Anyone could apply and push this patch? Thanks!
Cheers,
--
Arnaud Fontaine
___
xorg-devel@lists.x.org: X.Org development
Archives: http://lists.x.org/archives/xorg-devel
Info: http://lists.x.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg-devel
On 09/11/13 01:13 AM, Arnaud Fontaine wrote:
Hello,
Anyone could apply and push this patch? Thanks!
Pushing the patch is easy - determining if it's our consensus to change
the X.Org coding style to allow this is the hard part.
Does anyone object to allowing this change to the coding style
Big old pile of fixes. This includes most of my unifdef ROOTLESS series
(except for the MoveWindowInStack thing, which on second reading was
obviously broken), the reviewed bits of the damage cleanup, the reviewed
parts of the glx series, and the misc fixes from my previous pull
request.
The
Does anyone object to allowing this change to the coding style now
that it's no longer a hard requirement for OpenBSD's ports?
I haven't yet seen what this is in response to. But the Subject: makes
it appear that this is talking about accepting
declaration-after-statements code.
If so, I
Apparently this has never been in the release tarballs? Wild.
Signed-off-by: Adam Jackson a...@redhat.com
---
damageext/Makefile.am | 1 +
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
diff --git a/damageext/Makefile.am b/damageext/Makefile.am
index 4d4cf44..35f7620 100644
--- a/damageext/Makefile.am
+++
There's no good reason to waste memory on this, we're already stashing a
pointer to the drawable.
Signed-off-by: Adam Jackson a...@redhat.com
---
miext/damage/damage.c| 6 +-
miext/damage/damagestr.h | 1 -
2 files changed, 1 insertion(+), 6 deletions(-)
diff --git
v2:
Optimize pixmaps by only watching for them on screen 0
Properly translate coordinates for window reports in Xinerama mode
This still has the issue that damage to windows that cross ScreenRec
boundaries will come in multiple pieces. Technically, for everything
except NonEmpty reports, this is
Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2013 11:09:20 -0700
From: Alan Coopersmith alan.coopersm...@oracle.com
On 09/11/13 01:13 AM, Arnaud Fontaine wrote:
Hello,
Anyone could apply and push this patch? Thanks!
Pushing the patch is easy - determining if it's our consensus to change
the X.Org coding style
On Wed, Sep 11, 2013 at 5:26 PM, Adam Jackson a...@redhat.com wrote:
There's no good reason to waste memory on this, we're already stashing a
pointer to the drawable.
Signed-off-by: Adam Jackson a...@redhat.com
For the series:
Reviewed-by: Alex Deucher alexander.deuc...@amd.com
---
On 09/11/2013 11:51 AM, Adam Jackson wrote:
Big old pile of fixes. This includes most of my unifdef ROOTLESS series
(except for the MoveWindowInStack thing, which on second reading was
obviously broken), the reviewed bits of the damage cleanup, the reviewed
parts of the glx series, and the misc
On Wed, 2013-09-11 at 17:56 -0400, Adam Jackson wrote:
Only rootless ddxes fill that slot in anyway
Actually a lie, sorry. dmx does and so does mioverlay. But in both
cases this looks harmless/correct.
- ajax
___
xorg-devel@lists.x.org: X.Org
Only rootless ddxes fill that slot in anyway. So just do it, and remove
a #ifdef ROOTLESS in the process.
Signed-off-by: Adam Jackson a...@redhat.com
---
dix/window.c | 6 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 5 deletions(-)
diff --git a/dix/window.c b/dix/window.c
index cff341b..ec29555
On Wed, 2013-09-11 at 15:02 -0700, Aaron Plattner wrote:
On 09/11/2013 11:51 AM, Adam Jackson wrote:
damage: Remove post-rendering hooks
This one is an ABI breaker because it rearranges DamageRec fields.
Could you please throw an ABI bump on this pile?
Yep. Also the mipointer
On 09/11/13 02:26 PM, Adam Jackson wrote:
Apparently this has never been in the release tarballs? Wild.
Signed-off-by: Adam Jackson a...@redhat.com
---
damageext/Makefile.am | 1 +
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
diff --git a/damageext/Makefile.am b/damageext/Makefile.am
index
Hi,
On 11 September 2013 17:31, Mark Kettenis mark.kette...@xs4all.nl wrote:
From: Alan Coopersmith alan.coopersm...@oracle.com
Pushing the patch is easy - determining if it's our consensus to change
the X.Org coding style to allow this is the hard part.
Does anyone object to allowing this
On 09/11/13 08:52 PM, Daniel Stone wrote:
Hi,
On 11 September 2013 17:31, Mark Kettenis mark.kette...@xs4all.nl wrote:
From: Alan Coopersmith alan.coopersm...@oracle.com
Pushing the patch is easy - determining if it's our consensus to change
the X.Org coding style to allow this is the hard
It's still bad style.
Yeah, I actually totally agree.
So do I, in most cases. I can, sort of, see a place for it in things
like macro expansions, but even then I'd rather open a new block for
the new scope.
The one bit I would like to have is declarations in for/while loops,
such as
Well now I feel bad; I thought we had discussed this before and
everyone was OK with it. I should revert that patch now, I guess? My
sincere apologies for being premature.
For the record, though, I totally and vehemently disagree with the
bad style argument. Separating definition from declaration
23 matches
Mail list logo
